Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

rated by 0 users

This post has
0
verified answers |
13
Replies |
2
Followers

I know that IP is generally looked upon here unfavorably, and I understand. However as an aspiring filmmaker who can also appreciate the protection of one's own ideas, I was wondering how fellow Miseans view copyright alternatives, like Creative Commons. Where does CC fit in the libertarian viewpoint?

Commons license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and even build upon a work that they have created.

Should be no problem in itself.

As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been "ported" to over 50 different jurisdictions worldwide. No new ports are being started as preparations for version 4.0 of the license suite begin.[1]

The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge.[2] The details of each of these licenses depends on the version, and comprises a selection of four conditions:

Attribution (by)

Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.

Noncommercial (nc)

Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.

No Derivative Works (nd)

Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.

Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.

The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

I think copyright of any kind is destructive to creativity in general and liberty in particular, but achieving legitimate attribution (sans State involvement) for one's creative output is certainly a worthwhile quest.

As a libertarian I wouldn't support anything more restrictive than Free Cultural Works, as anything beyond boils down to asserting a property claim on information itself. Belief in copyright enforcement is the norm in the entertainment industry, but that's for the simple utilitarian reason that it generally enables them to maximize the amount of profit milked from each investment. In other words, protectionism.

That's not to say a artist/creator should give everyone the blueprint to his success, but just that they can't "own" any of the intangible things they necessarily communicate to others by revealing their works.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
-H.L. Mencken